The winner entry of an idea competition for the Architecture Triennial in Oslo “Wemakecity”, claims the following: “Before we design houses, we might have to design political and economical processes. The architect then becomes a designer of process that as a consequence can yield particular architectural prototypes that are responding to a larger set of challenges”[1]. For most practicing architects the idea seems quite optimistic, if not obscure. What does it actually mean? Are we to learn our trade again from scratch? How would an architect/ designer, whose role is currently battling inside a process, have the capacity or power to design a process? The question was relevant for architects in Iceland after the financial crash (2008) as the whole society and its government was being re-evaluated, and people thirst for new solutions. This paper pinpoints the main problems of traditional architectural practice as seen from a practicing architect point of view and briefly reflects on the options for alternative practices for architects, under condition of scarcity.

Being in the process:

In his “Critical view on architectural practice” Robert Gutman (1988) pointed out that ten major conditions in transformation that have been an ever increasing source of anxiety and strain to architects: (1) the extent of the demand for services, (2) the structure of demand, (3) the oversupply or entrants into the profession, (4) the new skills required as a consequence of the increased complexity and scale of building types, (5) the consolidation and professionalization of the construction industry, (6) the greater rationality and sophistication of client organizations, (7) the heightened intensity of competition between architects and other professions, (8) increased competition within the profession, (9) the difficulties of achieving profitability and obtaining sufficient personal income, and (10) greater intervention and involvement on the part of the state and the wider public in architectural concerns.[2] Surely most of those conditions haven’t developed in a way that has simplified the life of the architect during the last 20 years. The competition, complexity and bureaucracy are heavier than ever. What Gutman does not mention though, is the devastating weight of the moral predicament[3].

Ideally the architects/urban planners should be able to focus all skill and good moral on contributing to the building of a better society. Instead they often find themselves in the impossible dilemma of negotiating between stakeholders with completely different agendas.

-Firstly, the architect/urban planner work for the resourceful developer, whose aim may be to make a qualitative contribution to the built environment; however this is often not the case. Sometimes developers are not even interested in building anything at all, their purpose being only to develop “paper projects” to sell with the properties, in order to increase value.

-Secondly, he/she works on behalf of the municipality and state, to enforce their rules, in form of building regulations and masterplan.

-Thirdly, she/he works for the user, who more than often is not there yet, and thus cannot be identified when the work is being done.

It is not as if it really is up to the architect to select on which side he is. If he singularly chooses to work for the (often imagined) inhabitant/user/passers by he will probably lose the contract, his professional license or both, possibly with the result of the project being handed over to other architects that are more supportive to the clients’ ideas.

The last role is probably the one dominating in architecture schools, the other two hardly being mentioned to the students. It is not unlikely that the discrepancy between the typical architecture students’ idea about practice and what practice really is, is bigger than in most professions; which is a serious waste, considering how many years it takes to study architecture, then work to learn the trade for finally finding out that this profession is not really what you are interested in doing.

The lack of identifiable actors and of direct confrontations may cause an abstract relationship to the project, not only for the architect, but also for the building authorities, judging its qualities and eventually allowing its realization.

The conflicting agendas are never as present as in the housing ’business’ where the clients and the users usually are not the same. Housing covers much more area than any other functions in most if not all cities. Housing is also the part of the built environment people personally spend the most time in and money on, and a roof over ones head is globally normative as a basic need. This important field has become the battle ground on which the architect is torn between the interests of the market and the inhabitants. The capital interests rule the bulk of domestic architecture; the arena where architects theoretically could be contributing to a healthier society, but are hindered to do so.

Maja Breznik states: “The sacrifice of intellectuals for the benefit of economic growth can offer only temporary gains, while in the long-term societies are going to lose a great deal. The ‘waste’ of intellectuals for the benefit of business is, to put it simply, irresponsible management of human resources.”[4] This applies also to architects, whose work will not be easily hidden away in a pile of paper but will be manifested in a built environment we must live with for ages.

This said; let’s go back to the architect who has spent all his stamina to manage the contradictive and frustrating processes as well as possible. When the obstacles are out of the way and the building is there, one would think that the architect could continue with his business better qualified to succeed in his complex role the next time. But he might not be able to see in contentment on any achievements he might despite all have had, for too long. The market forces re-enter the scene, and the urban environment, which by architectural means has been improved, becomes gentrified, and the initial intentions to raise the standard for the inhabitants, turns out to squeeze them out to poorer territories. This shows the dilemma of the architect in a society lacking a (social) housing policy; the good you do is going to be taken advantage of by someone else and there is nothing you can do about it. That doesn’t make the architect feel particularly powerful and thus in shape to empower the others does it?

An obvious survival strategy for the architect is to focus on the outer appearance of architecture, instead of the content of the built environment. This undermines the social aspects and political potential in architecture and urbanism.

The bubble in the housing market before the credit crunch in Iceland made production of housing a very lucrative business. It has been well documented that the changes in the built environment were big, and there are already some analyses out there pointing out the big damage done.[5] Now the developers, investors and contractors have gone underground in Reykjavik due to lack of funds and offers (read: young people who can be persuaded to take 100% loans to buy bad housing). The Architects Association in Iceland has in full publicity been asked by The Parliamentarian Group on Environmental Issues to take self criticism for having betrayed their responsibility to the people and uncritically played along with the power of money. The President of the Architects Association complained in return about a lack of courtesy[6].

At best, one could hope that the architect is the wise wo/man guiding the client, cleverly leading the market interests onto the good path, which is what we practicing (and naïve?) architects like to believe we are doing. Or is the society better off, having him/her as the critical voice, critizising projects and proposing alternative strategies?

Having chosen his/her position, the architect must look for appropriate and functional ways to gain influence.Defining development strategies, for instance proposing a certain way of programming that might generate a certain transformation of an area, initiating or inhibiting gentrification, may prove more powerful than design – (thus leaving building design to those who are socially/ politically less aware and concerned?)

Who will engage the architect who has chosen the strategic tools? Is he left as an idealistic activist, or may he still play a role within the economic system of the built environment production?

What we see now is the architect trying to maneuver different tools and methods – expanding the range of work architects may take on and manage. The architect`s role is a flexible one; the flexibility representing both its strength and its ethical challenges in a world shifting between abundance and scarcity.

:

THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT:

By no means complete and only meant to reflect on our options as practicing architects.

A list of options for working within and outside the system (in the sociological meaning of structures; legal framework, institutions, etc./not to be confused with inside and outside the economic system although there clearly is a some connection):

WITHIN THE SYSTEM:

-to improve it (the system):

To work for the state on legislation

To become a politician

To work in the municipalities’ building department and be creative with interpreting the law

To work in the municipalities as a planner, making the rules (masterplanning)

To work at a University in education to influence the students to be critical to traditional practice

To work on research, which points out the weaknesses in the system and suggest ways to improve it; – the Vienna project, the London project, the Oslo project

To work for the conservation authorities against destruction of good environment as a result of money pressures

To work for the establishment as a curator

-to enforce it and this can make your wallet stiff

To continue the traditional practice without any moral scruples – open for corruption

To work in the municipality without any moral scruples – open for corruption

To take on the role of other professions where your expertise can be used: estate agent, contractor etc. – open for corruption

-neutral practice within the system

To continue the traditional practice, but try to be the agent for the user as much as possible without losing the contract.

To work on projects which have no conflicting interests where there is consensus on goals, like schools, beautification of public places (neat “cleaning up” projects).

To work on projects where the client and the user is the same person (house/small housing projects

To take on the role of other professions where architectural expertise can be used: estate agent, contractor etc., but try to be the agent for the user as much as possible without losing the contract.

OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM (and this might make you poor!

To assist in neighbor protests against bad projects

To write critical articles in the newspapers influencing politicians and the public opinion – not to be confused with writing for your colleagues in the professional press (who usually are reflected on these issues and agree with you anyway).

To become a barefoot worker: students at rural studio or something like the cult of the carpenters (from the alps?) who walk from place to place in national costumes, only doing work is not subject for legislation trading work with food and bed for the night (not practical if you have a family.

To do small alterations in houses and outdoor spaces that don’t require authorization.

To become an artist doing work undermining the system, (make informative/subversive film, photography, mapping)

To become a clown

To become an activist

To make anti-gentrification projects that don’t require authorization

To become a hippie, save an old building or move to a remote valley (not particularly influential but you might have time to help your neighbors, which is a good thing!